* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This patch set allows to have inlined spinlocks again. > > V2: rewritten from scratch - now also with readable code > > V3: removed macro to generate out-of-line spinlock variants since that > would break ctags. As requested by Arnd Bergmann. > > V4: allow architectures to specify for each lock/unlock variant if > it should be kept out-of-line or inlined. > > V5: simplify ifdefs as pointed out by Linus. Fix architecture compile > breakages caused by this change. > > V6: rename __spin_lock_is_small to __always_inline__spin_lock as requested > by Ingo Molnar. That way it is more consistent with the other methods > used to force inlining. > Also simplify inlining by getting rid of the old variants to force > inlining of the unlock functions. > > This is hopefully the final version. I did again run the whole > cross compiles. The patch set applies on top of latest Linus' git > tree, but also applies on top of linux-next. > > Ingo, I assume you don't have further objections? Yeah, looks pretty good now. > Should this go in via -mm then? Well, we generally do locking API changes via the locking tree. I'll apply them and give it some testing to see whether there's any problems with this. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
